Re: law enforcement for profit

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 04:34:11 MDT

Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >
> >Any means of gathering evidence not under immediate human supervision
> >and control is mere hearsay evidence, no matter how accurate or well
> >time stamped it is.
> Perhaps. But "mere hearsay" is not the same as inadmissible, or not
> convincing. There are many exceptions to the so-called "hearsay evidence
> rule". And hearsay evidence is admitted into evidence all the time. Film
> of you running a red light would pretty much nail you, unless you came up
> with a very convincing excuse. If automated evidence were useless,
> convenience stores across the country would not be wasting so much money on
> surveillance cameras.

As previously stated by Lee, unless that film clearly shows YOU driving
the car, then there can be no citation, as a moving violation citation
must be addressed to a person who is accused, not an inanimate object.
Hearsay evidence must be corroborated by eyewitness testimony or other
material evidence. Charges based solely on hearsay are not even
indictable charges.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:30 MDT